Patient Feedback Design for Stroke Rehabilitation Technology

  • Daniel TetterooEmail author
  • Lilha Willems
  • Panos Markopoulos
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 574)


The use of technology in stroke rehabilitation is increasingly common. An important aspect in stroke rehabilitation is feedback towards the patient, but research on how such feedback should be designed in stroke rehabilitation technology is scarce. Therefore, in this paper we describe an exploratory process on the design, implementation and evaluation of a patient feedback module for TagTrainer: an interactive stroke rehabilitation technology. From this process, and from previous literature, we derive five guidelines for patient feedback design in stroke rehabilitation technology. Finally, we illustrate how these guidelines can be used to evaluate existing patient feedback solutions.


Design guidelines Assistive technology Arm-hand rehabilitation Stroke Data visualization 



We acknowledge the support of the Innovation-Oriented Research Programme ‘Integral Product Creation and Realization (IOP IPCR)’ of the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs. In addition, we would like to thank Adelante Centre of Expertise in Rehabilitation and Audiology, and in particular the therapists and patients who participated in the design and evaluation of the feedback module.


  1. 1.
    Burke, J.W., et al.: Optimising engagement for stroke rehabilitation using serious games. Vis. Comput. 25(12), 1085–1099 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cirstea, M.C., Levin, M.F.: Improvement of arm movement patterns and endpoint control depends on type of feedback during practice in stroke survivors. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair. 21(5), 398–411 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donker, V. et al.: REHAP Balance Tiles: a modular system supporting balance rehabilitation. In: 2015 Proceedings of Pervasive Health. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hochstenbach-Waelen, A., Seelen, H.A.: Embracing change: practical and theoretical considerations for successful implementation of technology assisting upper limb training in stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 9, 52 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ijsselsteijn, W. et al.: Digital game design for elderly users. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Future Play, pp. 17–22. ACM, New York, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krakauer, J.W.: Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 19(1), 84–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krebs, H.I., et al.: Robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. Publ. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 6(1), 75–87 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kurniawan, S., Zaphiris, P.: Research-derived web design guidelines for older people. In: Proceedings of the 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 129–135. ACM, New York, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lövquist, E., Dreifaldt, U.: The design of a haptic exercise for post-stroke arm rehabilitation (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shea, C.H., Wulf, G.: Enhancing motor learning through external-focus instructions and feedback. Hum. Mov. Sci. 18(4), 553–571 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tetteroo, D.: TagTrainer: A Meta-design Approach to Interactive Rehabilitation Technology. In: Dittrich, Y., Burnett, M., Mørch, A., Redmiles, D. (eds.) IS-EUD 2013. LNCS, vol. 7897, pp. 289–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Timmermans, A., et al.: Technology-assisted training of arm-hand skills in stroke: concepts on reacquisition of motor control and therapist guidelines for rehabilitation technology design. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 6(1), 1 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Timmermans, A.A.A.: Technology-Supported Training of Arm-Hand Skills in Stroke. Eindhoven University of Technology (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Vliet, P.M., Wulf, G.: Extrinsic feedback for motor learning after stroke: what is the evidence? Disabil. Rehabil. 28(13–14), 831–840 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winstein, C.J.: Knowledge of results and motor learning–implications for physical therapy. Phys. Ther. 71(2), 140–149 (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wulf, G., et al.: Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors. Med. Educ. 44(1), 75–84 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R.: Effortless Motor Learning? An External Focus of Attention Enhances Movement Effectiveness and Efficiency. Effortless Attention: A New Perspective in Attention and Action. MIT Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Tetteroo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lilha Willems
    • 1
  • Panos Markopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations